Gun Rights versus Gun Control in the United States

Wait, so now we are lining up famous or infamous political figures in history who were pro-gun control? Normally that's something groups like the NRA when they harp on how Hitler was pro gun control. It's a silly argument not matter which side uses it.

Wait, so now we are lining up famous or infamous political figures in history who were pro-gun control? Normally that's something groups like the NRA when they harp on how Hitler was pro gun control. It's a silly argument not matter which side uses it.

I didn't realize every post in here has to be limited to a pro- or anti-gun control argument. There is this thing called news that can be relevant to the thread once in a while...

Are you...being snarky about my rando suggestion after you were "sold" on it?

I'm making it glaringly obvious you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, as you attempt to hide behind innuendo, attacks, insults, and pure ignorance of political realities.

No, you're simply that lazy or just desparate to be contrary that you will contradict yourself within posts. The majority of people want universal background checks, it is largely the federal GOP that is being intractable. Despite the random attempts to show any change from the status quo isn't perfect enough for the asinine pedantry that litters this thread, it's simply not an insurmountable policy issue on implementation, rights, nor feasibility grounds. It also has real potential of addressing actual gun crime issues. You're just flailing.

At any rate I can't imagine this tangent going anywhere.

Actually, it was your own contradictions that led to this exchange. Your proposal has not a single chance of democratic support, and would be very much favored by republicans, and really, I don't even think it would do what you think it would do. At least review the code before throwing out "FFLs for everyone!" ideas to see what that actually means.

I think you're out to lunch on anything I've actually "proposed" but regardless, thats that it for me on that. Presumably other people may have more to say on universal background checks that doesn't rely on mischaracterizing the discussion and general dishonest dealing that has become your staple.

Wait, so now we are lining up famous or infamous political figures in history who were pro-gun control? Normally that's something groups like the NRA when they harp on how Hitler was pro gun control. It's a silly argument not matter which side uses it.

I didn't realize every post in here has to be limited to a pro- or anti-gun control argument. There is this thing called news that can be relevant to the thread once in a while...

Let me put this another way, I find the fact that Nixon was pro-gun control no more interesting, telling, or important when debating the topic than I find the fact that Hitler was.

Wait, so now we are lining up famous or infamous political figures in history who were pro-gun control? Normally that's something groups like the NRA when they harp on how Hitler was pro gun control. It's a silly argument not matter which side uses it.

I didn't realize every post in here has to be limited to a pro- or anti-gun control argument. There is this thing called news that can be relevant to the thread once in a while...

Let me put this another way, I find the fact that Nixon was pro-gun control no more interesting, telling, or important when debating the topic than I find the fact that Hitler was.

Let me put that this way: Typical GRA narcissism.

Initially you portrayed PsionEdge's factoid about Nixon on hand guns as a worthless "argument". When called out on that (it was offered as a note of interest, not an argument), you decline the opportunity to retract and instead fall back to a position that you don't find Nixon's view interesting.

That's nice and all, but PsionEdge's point wasn't about you. The fact that a life-long anti-communist, anti-hippie, law-and-order type like Nixon wasn't in the pocket of the NRA is an interesting fact from any reasonably objective point of view, especially in light of the contemporary polarization on gun issues.

Initially you portrayed PsionEdge's factoid about Nixon on hand guns as a worthless "argument". When called out on that (it was offered as a note of interest, not an argument), you decline the opportunity to retract and instead fall back to a position that you don't find Nixon's view interesting.

I don't believe it was not an argument any more than I believe the NRA types are just letting people know something interesting in that Hitler was in favor of gun control to. It's bullshit when either side claims that it isn't an argument

Initially you portrayed PsionEdge's factoid about Nixon on hand guns as a worthless "argument". When called out on that (it was offered as a note of interest, not an argument), you decline the opportunity to retract and instead fall back to a position that you don't find Nixon's view interesting.

I don't believe it was not an argument any more than I believe the NRA types are just letting people know something interesting in that Hitler was in favor of gun control to. It's bullshit when either side claims that it isn't an argument

I must've missed when Hitler was president of the United States of America to have it be at all relevant to the political debate on gun politics here.

Anyways, the fact that I posted a snippet of news you can somehow only construe as an argument put forth for gun control. Well. I don't know what to say. You are out to lunch or something.

The comparison between the National Smokers Alliance and the NRA is quite apt.

Interesting, because we can see the end result of giving the nannyers full stage. They aren't satisfied with protecting people from others' choices, but quickly move on to increasingly restrictive laws toward banning smoking to force their own life decisions on others. They simply miss the part of their brain that distinguishes between the notions of personal opinion and law. Maybe now you see why gun rights advocates don't want to go down the slippery slope toward effectively banning through complex licensing, restrictions, taxes, etc.

A pro-gun poster taking the side of the tobacco companies in the smoking debate.

The comparison between the National Smokers Alliance and the NRA is quite apt.

Interesting, because we can see the end result of giving the nannyers full stage. They aren't satisfied with protecting people from others' choices, but quickly move on to increasingly restrictive laws toward banning smoking to force their own life decisions on others. They simply miss the part of their brain that distinguishes between the notions of personal opinion and law. Maybe now you see why gun rights advocates don't want to go down the slippery slope toward effectively banning through complex licensing, restrictions, taxes, etc.

A pro-gun poster taking the side of the tobacco companies in the smoking debate.

Well I suppose that makes you ideologically consistent.

One of the main differences is that I don't think at any time the gun manufactures ever claimed that their products didn't kill people. Unlike the tobacco industry that for years claimed their products were perfectly safe and hid evidence that proved otherwise.

One of the main differences is that I don't think at any time the gun manufactures ever claimed that their products didn't kill people

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

A moral argument not a claim that if you point a gun at somebody and pull trigger the bullet isn't going to harm the other person. The people who made cigs claimed for years that their products didn't harm anybody.

One of the main differences is that I don't think at any time the gun manufactures ever claimed that their products didn't kill people. Unlike the tobacco industry that for years claimed their products were perfectly safe and hid evidence that proved otherwise.

They claim that gun ownership is a net positive for American society, or at least deny it's a negative.

The parallels with the smoking debate are quite striking, the major difference is that the gun lobby has the protection of a constitutional amendment.

Actually, it was your own contradictions that led to this exchange. Your proposal has not a single chance of democratic support, and would be very much favored by republicans, and really, I don't even think it would do what you think it would do. At least review the code before throwing out "FFLs for everyone!" ideas to see what that actually means.

I think you're out to lunch on anything I've actually "proposed" but regardless, thats that it for me on that. Presumably other people may have more to say on universal background checks that doesn't rely on mischaracterizing the discussion and general dishonest dealing that has become your staple.

Let's ignore that making universal checks accessible to everyone effectively makes everyone "FFLs", but if that's the fucking way it has to be framed, then so bet it. Wish I'd thought of that pages ago. Would have saved some liver damage.

There you are saying: FFLs for everyone!

If you don't understand how your arguments fail to work, please revisit the definitions of what you are proposing.

They claim that gun ownership is a net positive for American society, or at least deny it's a negative.

The parallels with the smoking debate are quite striking, the major difference is that the gun lobby has the protection of a constitutional amendment.

Bullshit. The tobacco industry made factually false statements about the safety of its products when used as intended. I'm not aware of the gun industry doing the same.

I'm sure once funding is provided to do real scientific studies (what little studies have been done, clearly find correlation to simply having a gun in the house, increases your chances of gun violence 3 to 1) we will see the same twisting of data.

The cigarette industry, for decades, suppressed research into the effects of their products, funded astroturfing campaigns to lobby for them, paid for bogus research aimed at throwing doubt on the scientific consensus, and used calls of 'nanny state' as a way to campaign against reform of a product which was the number 1 killer of Americans each year.

The gun lobby and the 'climate change skeptic' movement use exactly the same tactics.

I'm sure once funding is provided to do real scientific studies (what little studies have been done, clearly find correlation to simply having a gun in the house, increases your chances of gun violence 3 to 1) we will see the same twisting of data.

Only time will tell.

The two situations aren't the same. Tobacco companies lied about the risk of products to consumers, and when used as intended. You are talking about the risk of guns to others, and when used incorrectly or illegally.

I never said "historically", and that word allows you to conveniently focus on certain oppositions to tobacco companies (which, incidentally, I would agree with you on). There are people trying to ban cigarette smoking in people's own houses. Are they right simply because they oppose tobacco companies? (Maybe you agree with those people, and maybe you even think tobacco should be banned, but hopefully not simply because it opposes tobacco companies.)

Quote:

The cigarette industry, for decades, suppressed research into the effects of their products, funded astroturfing campaigns to lobby for them, paid for bogus research aimed at throwing doubt on the scientific consensus, and used calls of 'nanny state' as a way to campaign against reform of a product which was the number 1 killer of Americans each year.

The gun lobby and the 'climate change skeptic' movement use exactly the same tactics.

As do many other political groups and politicians, some of whose conclusions you surely agree with. You're arguing that just because an argument's logic is wrong, its conclusion is wrong, but that isn't true.

The cigarette industry, for decades, suppressed research into the effects of their products, funded astroturfing campaigns to lobby for them, paid for bogus research aimed at throwing doubt on the scientific consensus, and used calls of 'nanny state' as a way to campaign against reform of a product which was the number 1 killer of Americans each year.

The gun lobby and the 'climate change skeptic' movement use exactly the same tactics.

Which gun manufactures directly say in their ads that owning a gun reduces the chance of you dying from gun shot wounds? They market them as a solution for one particular type of problems, not a cure all. In much the same way that somebody who markets a pool for health benefits and fun, doesn't bring up the fact that X number of people drown in them every year which is a negative health effect and certainly no fun at all to say the least.

Or the people who market booze as a way to have fun at a party don't bring up the negative effects of getting addicted, drunk driving, or people getting so drunk they pass out and don't know what they did the night before.

The cigarette industry, for decades, suppressed research into the effects of their products, funded astroturfing campaigns to lobby for them, paid for bogus research aimed at throwing doubt on the scientific consensus, and used calls of 'nanny state' as a way to campaign against reform of a product which was the number 1 killer of Americans each year.

The gun lobby and the 'climate change skeptic' movement use exactly the same tactics.

Which gun manufactures directly say in their ads that owning a gun reduces the chance of you dying from gun shot wounds? They market them as a solution for one particular type of problems, not a cure all. In much the same way that somebody who markets a pool for health benefits and fun, doesn't bring up the fact that X number of people drown in them every year which is a negative health effect and certainly no fun at all to say the least.

Or the people who market booze as a way to have fun at a party don't bring up the negative effects of getting addicted, drunk driving, or people getting so drunk they pass out and don't know what they did the night before.

Both you and SS are correct, but the statistic of a gun being in the home increases your risk of dying and/or injury by gun violence 3 to 1 is scientific fact that can't be disputed. But there is this "self preservation at all costs self defense" mentality that muddles any future research.

the statistic of a gun being in the home increases your risk of dying and/or injury by gun violence 3 to 1 is scientific fact that can't be disputed

The way you word what you said implies causation. Did you mean to say it that way? A more neutral way of wording it is that people with guns in the house have 3 times as high risk of dying and/or being injured by gun violence.

Both you and SS are correct, but the statistic of a gun being in the home increases your risk of dying and/or injury by gun violence 3 to 1 is scientific fact that can't be disputed. But there is this "self preservation at all costs self defense" mentality that muddles any future research.

I personally am not disputing that fact, however despite knowing that fact I have made a choice to have a firearm in my house.

Likewise ((I have no numbers)) but say I found out that having a sword in the home increased my risk of being injured or dying by a sword by 10 times... I'd still keep my swords. There is a risk/trade off. Just like with owning anything that can kill you, from pools to jet skies to guns.

Both you and SS are correct, but the statistic of a gun being in the home increases your risk of dying and/or injury by gun violence 3 to 1 is scientific fact that can't be disputed. But there is this "self preservation at all costs self defense" mentality that muddles any future research.

I personally am not disputing that fact, however despite knowing that fact I have made a choice to have a firearm in my house.

Likewise ((I have no numbers)) but say I found out that having a sword in the home increased my risk of being injured or dying by a sword by 10 times... I'd still keep my swords. There is a risk/trade off. Just like with owning anything that can kill you, from pools to jet skies to guns.

The thing that is implied (but often left unsaid) by such 'alarming' jumps in risk when one acquires a firearm is that the risk numbers are fantastically low to begin with. We often see this effect in aviation, where a single bad accident can cause the fatality rate for a particular year to be 2 or 3 times the average rate (for example, ValuJet 592 caused a huge and 'alarming' spike in the graph for 1996, until you looked at the actual number values and realized just how small they were on an absolute scale).

In other words, if my chances of being injured or dying to a firearm are say, 1 in 10,000,000 if I don't own a gun - I'm not going to be particularly concerned if they increase to 3 in 10,000,000 if I own one. Triple the risk, yes, but the probabilities are so remote to begin with it doesn't mean a whole lot in any practical sense.

In fact, it's quite likely that the item I (and most others in the country) own that is most likely to injure or kill us on a daily basis is a car. Getting into one is high risk compared to just about anything else most of us do each day, but we don't usually give it much thought.

The cigarette industry, for decades, suppressed research into the effects of their products, funded astroturfing campaigns to lobby for them, paid for bogus research aimed at throwing doubt on the scientific consensus, and used calls of 'nanny state' as a way to campaign against reform of a product which was the number 1 killer of Americans each year.

The gun lobby and the 'climate change skeptic' movement use exactly the same tactics.

As do many other political groups and politicians, some of whose conclusions you surely agree with.

the statistic of a gun being in the home increases your risk of dying and/or injury by gun violence 3 to 1 is scientific fact that can't be disputed

The way you word what you said implies causation. Did you mean to say it that way? A more neutral way of wording it is that people with guns in the house have 3 times as high risk of dying and/or being injured by gun violence.

Actually, it's 3-1 for any sort of violent death. Not just 'gun violence'.

In other words, if my chances of being injured or dying to a firearm are say, 1 in 10,000,000 if I don't own a gun - I'm not going to be particularly concerned if they increase to 3 in 10,000,000 if I own one. Triple the risk, yes, but the probabilities are so remote to begin with it doesn't mean a whole lot in any practical sense.

In fact, it's quite likely that the item I (and most others in the country) own that is most likely to injure or kill us on a daily basis is a car. Getting into one is high risk compared to just about anything else most of us do each day, but we don't usually give it much thought.

There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.

However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.

That said, for the large majority of households, having a gun in the home will not provide either health benefits or costs this year. However, for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that the costs will widely outweigh the benefits. The benefit–cost ratio is especially adverse for women and children in the household. Indeed, after weighing the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) decided that guns do not belong in households with children:

Quote:

The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially handguns, from the home.[101]

This also reminds me of the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on Martial Arts. If you are taking Martial Arts to protect yourself from getting hurt, you are doing it wrong because the statistics say that the people involved in Martial Arts are injured at a vastly higher rate than the rest of society. How is that possible? The training involved statisticaly creates roughly 1 injury per person per year going to practice via pulled muscles, broken bones, twisted ankles, broken noses because of a bad block and the like.

This also reminds me of the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode on Martial Arts. If you are taking Martial Arts to protect yourself from getting hurt, you are doing it wrong because the statistics say that the people involved in Martial Arts are injured at a vastly higher rate than the rest of society. How is that possible? The training involved statisticaly creates roughly 1 injury per person per year going to practice via pulled muscles, broken bones, twisted ankles, broken noses because of a bad block and the like.

Does this mean that there is no reason to take Martial Arts? No.

No, it means if your purpose of taking martial arts is to prevent harm to yourself you are doing it wrong.

If your purpose is exercise and gaining a skill, or because you like different color belts, you're fine -- it's your call if the risk of injury is worth it in that case.